Assessment of myocardial injury by troponin T in off‐pump coronary artery grafting and conventional coronary artery graft surgery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The present study was undertaken to assess the degree of myocardial injury, using troponin T (TnT), in off-pump coronary artery surgery (OPCAB) and in a comparable patient group undergoing conventional coronary artery graft surgery (CABG). METHODS: Twenty-seven OPCAB and 27 CABG patients were investigated. Blood samples for TnT were taken at intubation and at 12, 24 and 72 h. Nine patients (five OPCAB, four CABG) underwent 2 h sampling for 12 h for the assessment of the TnT release profile. All patients had an electrocardiogram performed preoperatively and on the mornings of days 1 and 5 postoperatively. RESULTS: The OPCAB group had significantly greater Canadian Heart Classification 3 patients (P = 0.003); however, other demographic data were similar between the two groups. All patients had normal TnT at initial sampling. The mean number of grafts in each group was 1.8 +/- 0.6 for OPCAB and 1.9 +/- 0.3 for CABG (P = NS). There were two new Q wave myocardial infarctions in the CABG group and none in the OPCAB group. These cases were excluded from biochemical analyses. Troponin T release was significantly less in the OPCAB group at 12 and 24 h (P < 0.001 and P = 0.03, respectively). Peak TnT release occurred at 6-8 h in both groups. Troponin T release was significantly lower in the OPCAB group at 2, 4, 6, 8, 10 and 12 h (P = 0.01, P = 0.03, P = 0.02, P = 0.02, P = 0.03 and P = 0.04, respectively). Postoperatively, the OPCAB group required less blood transfusion (P = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The OPCAB group demonstrated a significantly reduced TnT release profile compared with the CABG group.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".